WolverineEagle

WolverineEagle's picture

History

Member for
2 years 43 weeks

Karma

Current value

Recent Comments

Date Title Body
1 year 26 weeks ago He had plenty of upperclassmen his first two seasons

and the defense was terrible. And this defense has plenty of upperclassmen and/or guys with significant starting experience.  The seconday is the one part that lacks experience, but unfortunately for us, the entire unit stinks. The defensive issues are much more than an issue of experience.Coaching is the issue.
1 year 26 weeks ago Not so...

Saban won 12 games his second year, Tressel a NT, Carr a NT in his third, Dantonio won 9 his second season, Meyer a NT in his second..great coaches win and win almost immediately.

 

A coach needs time if he is taking a Wisconsin circa 1990(Alverez) or a school like Eastern Michigan which has no recruiting base, no tradition, no fan support. Basically, you have to build the entire program which slows the process dramatically. That is not so at UofM where you have everything you need right off the bat to win 8 games. Facilities, fan support, brand recognition, tradition...UofM is perfectly set up to be an instant winner which is why so many have issues with RichRod. He frankyl ,looks like a guy in over his head at the high major level.

 

I think if he is to survive that he surrender the defense entirely to the new DC.Scheme, coaching staff, size of players, etc. That is the only way UofM can have a good defense under RR because he clearly has no clue what to do on that side of the ball.
1 year 26 weeks ago Empirical evidence

Yo want us to believe something that all available evidence says won't happen--improvement by UM's defense. It has, in fact, worsened over Rodriguez's tenure here. SO why then should believe that it will improve?

 

You have to provide facts to support your thesis that it will improve. Something, anything, of substantive value.
1 year 26 weeks ago Where is this evidence that UM will be "lots better"

Offensively,yes, but defense and special teams are huge question marks. Strictly basing our opinion on evidence, one can say that UM will have a great offense, horrid defense, and so so special teams. What that translates to in terms of W's and L's is 5-7 to 7-5. In other words, mediocrity.

 

Any prediction other than that is based on pure conjecture.
1 year 26 weeks ago You make a good point regarding HC establishing a tone

I think that is the problem.His tone is all offense, no defense. This is evident from his decisions regarding the defense. Why in God's name would you force your assistants on a DC? You have to allow a DC to make his own hires. Why would you run a finesse defense in a power minded conference. A 3-3-5 is great for a one week gameplan, but not as your base defense. It is a finesse defense schematically which then promotes a finesse MENTALITY.

 

If he wants to succeed here, he needs to follow Urban Meyer's plan. Handle the offense and all the other compotents of a program but leave the defense to your DC.  Let him decide the scheme, assistant coaches. The only think he should worry about is penalties because they can  impact the team as a whole.

 

One certainly has to question RR's decisionmaking ability. It was he who brought in these DC's. It was he who decide to not have a special teams coordinator. These fall bac on him because he is the CEO of the operation.The makeup of the program is what HE wanted. Thus, he has to be held accountable for the results that the program produces.
1 year 26 weeks ago But at least UM got to Rose Bowl

What has UM gained by running the spread?
1 year 26 weeks ago Well, for starters

UM did not gameplan for Appy State and UM still won 9 games that season including a win over a spread team in the Capital One Bowl. The 06' did get exposed, but they were 11-0 at one point. UM far more games with smashmouth than they are now. If you recall the 01' team. It too was young, but they somehow managed to win 8 games with a mediocre offense and defense---sorta like how Dantonio has managed to do in his 4 years.

Furthermore, the dominant team in the conference uses alot of smashmouth. OSU only has won 5 straight Big Ten titles during the period you say that the Big Ten was tougher.

Two spread teams won the NT.One did so with a less-than-stellar defense and they had Vince Young.UF won both of their NT's with great defenses.

UM is younger, but not inexperienced. Defensively, they have plenty of experience in their front 7. Offensively, most guys have played more than one season. The youth argument fades with every passing game.

Tackling, poor assignments, and bad angles are not experience issues. TThese guys have played football for years. They know how to tackle, how to pursue properly, their assignment in a scheme. It isn't difficult. Besides, they have plenty of experience. You act like they start 11 true freshmen who came in August. They do not.

Your argument also ignores the fact that their defense was horrible his first two seasons with experienced players.
1 year 26 weeks ago I am tired of simplistic arguments

The defense--namely the front 7--is not that young. There are many guys who have been here several years. Yes, the secondary is painfully young and no one would expect that side to be highly effective. But thre front 7 does have experience.

Besides  these guys are football players. They have been playing the game for most of their lives. They should know pursuit angles, their assignment, how to tackle..this is basic stuff. This is football, not theoretical physics. It is not that hard to coach fundamentals--at least not for a good coach anyways.

Furthermore,T\the youth argument does not fly for defense as the defense was horrid for RR's first two seasons when they had experience in the secondary. That inconvenient fact is often left out--which is what partisans tend to do.Anti-RichRod often like to sugarcoat the difficulty of transitioning from a pro style to a spread and that is not right.

I understand that people desperately want the guy to win. I do too. But when you argue you cannot ignore, dismiss, or warp facts that  hinder your argument.

At this point, just looking at the evidence on the field--and that is all what any of us have to base our beliefs on--the "Fire RichRod" crowd has more ammuno than the Pro-Rod crowd. The on-the-field performances leave alot to be desired.

It is increasingly difficult  to see how he can win here when he has displayed no abiity to field a competent defense. Everyone knows that to win championships you need a defense. What in his three years leads anyone to believe that he will construct one? Blind faith is not a legitimate argument. You have to bring something tangible to the table. to support your argument.

The only conclusion I can make based off what I have seen for the past three years is that Rich Rodriguez has constructed a potentially dominant offense, an atrocious defense, and a so-so special teams unit. That is what the facts would tell anyone not in the thrall of RichRod's dynamic offense.

He will be back and I am not sure what to think. If Brandon forces him to dispense with his entire defensive staff and hire a guy who wil be permitted to bring in his own guys with his own scheme, than I think RR has a chance. If not, we are just delaying the inevitable. He will fail here.
1 year 26 weeks ago The offense is potentially great

But nothing has happened defensively to suggest that UM will be nothing more than Joe Tiller's Purdue teams. I have no reason to believe that UM will be better than 8-4 under Richrod,
1 year 26 weeks ago Explain why it taints the argument

That style of football won many, many  games in the Big Ten. RichRod's style has lost many, many games.

I happen to think that you can win with his offense, but that's based more on theory than anything we have seen in reality. No one has won consistently at a high level in the Big Ten with the spread. Purdue was medicore and OSU used a hybrid spread pro style as did PSU.Both also had strong defenses.
Theme provided by Roopletheme; sidebars adapted from Chris Murphy.